Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-08-30
HERALD.
THE CABLE ROAD MATTER.
The Case Against mr. James
McLaughlim.


The case of several parties against Mr.,
James Mclaughlin of the Second street
cable road ON trial in the courts attracts a
great deal of attention on account of the
interests involved. Judge GARDENERS opinion
IA given below in order that the many people
interested may see the disposition of the
matter by the Court;
Tn the Superior Court of the State Of Califor-
mia, Los Angeles County:
sHArro ct al, Plaintiff,
VS..
M. LAuGHLIN, Defendant.
Plaintiffs contract with defendant on jan
nary 18th, 1887, in substance is as follows:
Piafutiff agreed to transfer to defendant a
&C crtain city franchise designated ordinance
Ma 27l, approved Dec. z, 1856, being a
franchise for street railway line from Dia-
mond street, Los Angeles, to fhe exterior
boundary line OF the city in the direction OF
the southwest corner OF the Baptist Col
lege Company, and agreed to execute their
respective promissory notes to defendant in
the aggregate sum of $4,000 payable in
six months, said notes to be held by w. W.
Stillson, who is one of the pla1ntlfts, In
trust for defendant, to be selivered to de-
fendant upon completion of the railroad
hereinafter mentioned-on the first day
of the operation thereof at which time a
conveyance of said franchise was also to be
delivered to defendant, (such conveyance in
the meantime TO be held by said Stillson
in escrow.)
Defendant agreed to construct at his own
cost, equip and put in construction street
car line, with steam motor, throughout the
route mentioned in the franchise and to ex-
tend the same to the SW. corner OF said
College Campus, and to operate the same,
making at least twenty round trips day
throughout the line for period of two
years from the date of the day whereupon
said road woulo be put in operation, and to
complete the road and put in operation
within six months from date of approval of
the franchise. Defendant by way OF indem-
nity against failure to comply with his
contract gave his individual bond in the
sum of $40, 900 with collateral security in
value of $15, 900, aud defendant agreed to
cause the Second-Street Cable Railroad Com
pany, at the first meeting of the stockhold-
ers to enter into an agreement with defend
ant or his assignees to carry passengers
over Secoud-Street Cable Road and over the
whole of the dummy road upon contln-
nous trip from South Spring street to the
Sw. corner of the College Campus for sum
not to exceed five cents. such agreement
to be in force two years from date OF COM
pletion of the dummy road.
1t was agreed that npon failure OF defend.
ant or his assignees to complete the road
and put it in operation within six months,
said promissory notes should be void.
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT STATES
That he constructed the railway along the
chartered route also along the extension
exterior TO the city limits and thereupon
plaintiffs, of such completion and demanded
q delivery to him of the notes and deed.
That such delivery was not made. That
June 7th and June 9th respectively a second
and third demand was make upon the trus-
tee and upon plaintiff, Mailman, for such
delivery but such delivery was not then
made nor rendered, 1t also appears that in
making the third demand defendant accom-
panied it by a notification that unless all
notes and documents held by you in trust
tract, recorded in book 1856 Of deeds, page
1856, records of Los Angeles county, be
delivered to me by u o'clock this afternoon
at my office, corner of Second and Figueroa
streets, / shall claim your default fol-
breach of contract and shall act accordingly.
That such demand was not then com
piled with that thereafter one of plaintiffs
Informed defendant that two plaintiffs
"Hynes and Fudacker, refuse to pay these
notes or to order delivery thereof" to de-
fendant That still later namely, about
June 23, plaintiffs Mailman and Hynes
informed defendant that they were pre-
pared to deliver to him all the papers in
the contract specified. Defendant then
refused to furthor negotiate, claiming that
prior to that date he had been compelled to
sacrifice to meet contracted obligations.
Defendant claims that throughout all the
negotiations plaintiff Mailman land not
6tillson) acted as their adviser and repre-
sentative. Defendant also claimed that
certain of plaintiffs during progress of the
work subjected him to certain annoyanee'
etc. for the purpose of disabling
him from performing his contract to secure
pretence to evade payment of their obliga
ton, and claims that in o'her respects Ger
tus Of infi taH in had nj
Plaintiffs claim that defendant, when he
demanded delivery of the notes and deed
had not completed the road in accordance
with the contract, and that in fact he never
has 30 completed it, and that he never ope
rated the same in accordance with the con
tract. and plaintiffs charge defendant with
other fraudu ent acts and with failure to
comply with the terms of contract.
Plaintiffs claim TO be interested in having
street railway communication over the route
mentioned because they are owners of real
estate along the route and are owners of a
laIge body of land beyond the city limits adj
Joining the eli y at the city terminus of the
route, on which they had caused to be erect
ed a college; that to insure the successful op-
Grafton of the college and sale of their lands
II was necessary to have said railway ope-
rated and that for those purposes they en-
tered into said contract.
1t appears that about thirty days after the
alleged completion of the road defendant
city limits, and that he is not now operating
that portion of the road: that he is not run
ming the contract number OF trips over the
chartered line, and that he is not carrying
passengers at the stipulated price.
Plaintiffs pray for a decree that defendant
specifically perform his part of said con-
tract, and now upon motion before the trial
of the issues, plaintiffs ask that a
receiver be appointed, practically for
the purpose OF having ,t,o 5mmedaate per,
to be made by such receiver and upon the
same motion ask in the alternative that if
the court in its discretion declines to ap-
point receiver, that in such event defend
ant be directed by mandatory injunction
to forthwith, before the trial of the cause,
proceed to specifically perform the cove
nsnts, rebuild the part of the road exterior
to the city, run the contract number OF trips
and charge not to exceed the contract fare
over the route mentioned dncluding that
portion therefore owned by the Second
Street Cable Company, the charges over
which can be regulated only by contract
with an outside party.) From the
VIEW OF THE CASE TAKEN BY THE COURT
1t is not necessary to consider on this motion
whether plaintiffs would, by establishing at
final trial the facts alleged in the papers now
on file, be entitled ut time OF trial to the de-
cree prayed for, since II it be conceded that
upon such showing they may be entitled to
an injunction or receiver upon the trial of
the cause, they are, nevertheless, not en-
titled to such decree at this time on motion.
1t is not the purpose of the law to give to
plaintiffs, in advance of the trial. upon mo-
tiou, by interlocutary order for injunction or
receiver, the affirmative relief to which they
might be entitled upon introduction of all
the evidence at the trial. The general pur-
pose of such interlocutory proceedings is to
prevent the infection of irreparable damage
during the pendency of the action and to
preserve the property in its present condition
until time of trial in order that the
property may not, pending the litigation,
be destroyed, aad that thekCourt at the time
of the trial may be able to grant the relief
prayed for, in case it there appears from the
evidence at the trial that they are entitled
thereto.
''The sole object of an interlocutory injunc-
Is 20 preserpe tne sup}ect IN Controversy In
any question of right, merely to prevent the
further preparation of a wrong. 1t cannot
be used for the purpose of taking property
Of